Share separated and Social connection score
Where Share separated is higher, Social connection score tends to be lower. The link is moderate: -0.43 across 2,172 counties, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). That figure compares places with the same population density, income and education, so those differences can't explain it. It holds inside states too. Measured separately within each of 33 states, the middle value of the link is -0.42.
Holds after adjusting
Every place, plotted
One dot for each place reporting both measures. Hover over or tap a dot to see its name and values. The thin line is the straight line that best fits the dots. The bold line, shown for counties, is the link after adjusting for density, income and education. A dot far from the lines is a place that does not follow the pattern.
Loading every place…
What each measure is
Share separated
The percentage of people aged 15 and over who are separated. This is not a fifth group next to the other four. The Census counts a separated person as married with the spouse away, so this is part of the married share and must never be added to it.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B12001_007…B12001_016 (2 cells), divided by population aged 15 and over
Social connection score
Social connection: friendships across income lines, friendships across income lines in high school, volunteering, community Facebook pages, membership groups, and loneliness and lack of support (flipped). Friending bias is left out, since it is built from the same numbers as friendships across income lines.
· derived from 7 measures (CDC, CHR, SC)
Highest and lowest
Where each measure is highest and lowest among the places reporting both (2023), with the other measure beside it. This is shown for every size of place where both are published. Metro-area values are added up from their counties. A measure that cannot be added up across counties, such as a middle value (median), has no metro figure. Counts are shown per 1,000 residents, since raw totals would only list the largest places. Cities and towns and ZIP codes are shown where the Census survey or the CDC publishes them; most other sources stop at the county. They are shown for places of 5,000 residents or more, and only where the survey’s margin of error is small enough for the figure to be usable. The CDC publishes its health estimates for cities in a version adjusted for age, so places with older or younger people can be compared fairly, but not for ZIP codes.
Counties
By share separated
| Share separated | Social connection score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Lee County, KY | 6.77% | -0.922 |
| Holmes County, MS | 6.57% | -1.84 |
| Woodruff County, AR | 6.36% | -0.438 |
| Wilcox County, AL | 6.03% | -1.58 |
| Sharkey County, MS | 5.99% | -0.602 |
| Lowest | ||
| Columbia County, WA | 0% | 0.252 |
| Culberson County, TX | 0% | -1.16 |
| Sanborn County, SD | 0% | 0.0465 |
| Haakon County, SD | 0% | 0.583 |
| Golden Valley County, ND | 0% | 1.33 |
By social connection score
| Share separated | Social connection score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Thomas County, NE | 0% | 3.62 |
| Douglas County, MO | 3.05% | 3.01 |
| Wichita County, KS | 0% | 1.96 |
| Prairie County, MT | 0% | 1.79 |
| Fillmore County, MN | 0.692% | 1.76 |
| Lowest | ||
| Madison Parish, LA | 4.63% | -1.84 |
| Holmes County, MS | 6.57% | -1.84 |
| Tunica County, MS | 3.64% | -1.81 |
| Bronx County, NY | 4.7% | -1.7 |
| East Carroll Parish, LA | 3.35% | -1.67 |
States — Social connection score is not published for states
By share separated
| Share separated | Social connection score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Mississippi | 2.49% | — |
| South Carolina | 2.35% | — |
| Louisiana | 2.22% | — |
| New York | 2.19% | — |
| North Carolina | 2.18% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Wisconsin | 0.869% | — |
| North Dakota | 0.875% | — |
| Minnesota | 0.888% | — |
| Maine | 0.97% | — |
| Nebraska | 0.993% | — |
Metro areas
By share separated
| Share separated | Social connection score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Rio Grande City-Roma, TX | 5.51% | -2.33 |
| Raymondville, TX | 4.62% | -1.91 |
| Orangeburg, SC | 4.61% | -0.567 |
| Bainbridge, GA | 4.55% | -1.3 |
| Henderson, NC | 4.53% | -0.477 |
| Lowest | ||
| Mitchell, SD | 0% | 0.462 |
| Dickinson, ND | 0% | 0.902 |
| Ottawa, KS | 0.332% | 0.399 |
| Marquette, MI | 0.355% | 1.26 |
| Alexandria, MN | 0.412% | 1.64 |
By social connection score
| Share separated | Social connection score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Barre, VT | 0.894% | 2.07 |
| Somerset, PA | 1.43% | 1.67 |
| Alexandria, MN | 0.412% | 1.64 |
| Red Wing, MN | 0.702% | 1.54 |
| Oil City, PA | 2.23% | 1.48 |
| Lowest | ||
| Rio Grande City-Roma, TX | 5.51% | -2.33 |
| McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX | 3.04% | -1.96 |
| Eagle Pass, TX | 3.12% | -1.92 |
| Raymondville, TX | 4.62% | -1.91 |
| Laredo, TX | 2.9% | -1.77 |
Cities and towns — Social connection score is not published for cities and towns
By share separated
| Share separated | Social connection score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Westgate CDP, FL | 11% | — |
| Hazard city, KY | 9.11% | — |
| Central City city, KY | 6.97% | — |
| Gonzales city, TX | 6.77% | — |
| Monticello village, NY | 6.7% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Simsbury Center CDP, CT | 0% | — |
| Old Greenwich CDP, CT | 0% | — |
| Oakville CDP, CT | 0% | — |
| Daniels Farm CDP, CT | 0% | — |
| Cos Cob CDP, CT | 0% | — |
ZIP codes — Social connection score is not published for ZIP codes
By share separated
| Share separated | Social connection score | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 39095 (Holmes County, MS) | 10.2% | — |
| ZIP 79901 (El Paso city, TX) | 9.93% | — |
| ZIP 63106 (St. Louis city, MO) | 8.33% | — |
| ZIP 33128 (Miami city, FL) | 8.26% | — |
| ZIP 36784 (Clarke County, AL) | 8.07% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 08502 (Somerset County, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 08230 (Cape May County, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 08056 (Gloucester County, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 07981 (Whippany CDP, NJ) | 0% | — |
| ZIP 07757 (Oceanport borough, NJ) | 0% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,175 counties: the five with far more social connection score than their share separated would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Share separated | Social connection score | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Douglas County, MO | 3.05% | 3.01 |
| Thomas County, NE | 0% | 3.62 |
| Bottineau County, ND | 1.97% | 1.49 |
| Edwards County, IL | 3% | 1.12 |
| Hamilton County, NY | 3.02% | 1.02 |
| Below the line | ||
| Culberson County, TX | 0% | -1.16 |
| Claiborne Parish, LA | 1.54% | -1.31 |
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 2.45% | -1.61 |
| Lewis County, KY | 1.49% | -1.26 |
| Hancock County, TN | 2.39% | -1.58 |
Two series, one county
Both measures over time for a county you pick. The two charts are stacked, so they share only the years along the bottom. You can pick from the thirty largest counties reporting both. This panel covers 2010–2024, and a measure published only once shows as a single dot.
Loading…
Every version of the link
Each row measures the same link, from −1 to +1, in a different way. If the rows mostly agree, the link does not depend on one choice of method.
| Before adjusting for anything | -0.565 | 2,172 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | -0.433 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | -0.460 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | -0.283 | each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states |
| Giving bigger counties more weight | -0.456 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 270 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | -0.418 | the link worked out inside each of 33 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | -0.396 | uses each county’s rank, not its value, so a few extreme counties cannot create the link |
How much to believe it
Could it be chance?
The p-value is the chance of seeing a link this strong if there were really none. A value of 0.05 or less means the link is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 3.1e-16 means 0.00000000000000031, and the bigger the number after “e-”, the smaller the value. Treating every county as a separate case gives p = 1.1e-99. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 5.3e-10. The site tested 20,910 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 8.6e-99.
Do nearby places look alike?
Moran’s I measures how much nearby places look alike: 0 means no map pattern, and higher means neighbours are more similar. For the part of each county that the adjustment leaves unexplained, it is +0.47 (p = 0.001). That unexplained part still clusters on the map. So some regional factor shared by both measures is not accounted for.
Did they change together?
Not measurable: at least one of these is published for too few of the years a change needs (2014–2019 or 2019–2023), or for too few counties in both.
Related pairs
- Food insecurity and Social connection score — -0.70
- Lack of reliable transportation and Social connection score — -0.69
- Housing insecurity and Social connection score — -0.69
- Returns claiming the earned income credit and Social connection score — -0.63
- Threat of utility shut-off and Social connection score — -0.63
- Vision disability and Social connection score — -0.62
- Fair or poor self-rated health and Social connection score — -0.62
- Self-care disability and Social connection score — -0.61
Association only. Nothing here shows that either measure changes the other. This describes counties, not the people in them. Two measures going together across places does not mean the same people have both. How the US county data works · Explore Share separated and Social connection score